Even through the first amendment guarantees all citizens the right to free speech, there are exceptional circumstances where this freedom can be denied. A good example of such circumstance is when an individual is using the right to cause inconvenience to others such as in the presented case. The public platform in the presented case is not considered a public forum according to the first amendment because drivers will be distracted from their driving activity. Distractions will contribute to inconveniences due to the traffic jams likely to be created. There are also high chances that that the distractions might contribute to accidents.
The city’s denial needs therefore to be affirmed by the court. The importance of this is that it will stop the protesters from going on with their planned activity. The affirmation of the city’s denial will confirm the to the protesters that they are misinterpreting the law. This is because the court has specialised in interpreting the law. The protesters will need to comply with the affirmation since continuing with the planned protest will imply that they are breaking the law. In any case the protesters will go on with the protest and taken to the court, they will be punished.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As the court will be affirming the city’s denial, it will be important for it to mention that it supports the protesters conservation strategies but is only compelled to deny them the chance since they are not doing the activity in the right way. The significance of this is that it will help demonstrate neutrality. The specific ground that the court needs to use to affirm the city’s denial is the argument that the protests will increase the chances of accidents and traffic jams. The court should argue that drivers are prohibited to from using phones while driving because this causes distractions and that the protesting activity will cause distraction which the drivers avoid by not using their phones.
